User talk:Mighty'sMom

Amber Lynn

Hi Mighty'sMom. On Amber Lynn, I paraphrased the material because it's an overly-long quotation from a copyright work. In addition to being more copyright-compliant, Wikipedia articles read better when we write the content in our own words. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dianna, while I can certainly respect that you may want to edit it, you basically just deleted most of the comment of the article entirely, is there a middle ground here? -Mighty'sMom

I agree. The paraphrased version is just fine, and in fact, better because it is neutral. Please take this to the article's talk page rather than continuing to revert. Meters (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Amber Lynn. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Meters (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dianna, while I can certainly respect that you may want to edit it, you basically just deleted most of the comment of the article entirely, is there a middle ground here?